Catahan v. Eco Community Cleaners Inc.

Background

The opinion addresses Noel G. Catahan’s request to reconsider a January 16, 2025 Report and Recommendation concerning his motion to correct the judgment and his motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The January recommendation had recommended granting both motions. Catahan’s objections were treated as a motion for reconsideration.

Catahan argued that the earlier recommendation mistakenly recommended $1,757 in taxable costs rather than $417.19 in nontaxable expenses. He also requested additional nontaxable expenses and additional attorneys’ fees for work performed after he filed his original fee request.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important facts, when there is new evidence or an intervening change in controlling law, or when correction is needed to prevent clear error or manifest injustice. It is not an opportunity to present new matters or relitigate an issue already decided.

Correction to recommended expenses

The court found a clear error in the prior recommendation: it had used the taxable-cost figure of $1,757 instead of the nontaxable-expense figure of $417.19. The court therefore granted the motion for reconsideration insofar as it sought correction of that amount and amended the Report and Recommendation to recommend an award of $417.19 in nontaxable expenses.

Additional fees and expenses

Catahan also sought $82.73 in additional nontaxable expenses. The court’s calculation placed those expenses at $82.58. He additionally sought $8,825 in attorneys’ fees for 21.9 hours of additional work. After reviewing the time records, the court determined that the records reflected 18.9 additional hours and calculated the corresponding fees as $7,625 at the requested hourly rates.

The court denied these additional requests. It explained that Catahan raised them for the first time in the motion for reconsideration, did not identify authority allowing successive fee and cost applications in this setting, and did not provide sufficient explanations showing why the additional work and expenses were reasonable. The time records described activities such as enforcement, post-trial submissions, research, document preparation, file management, and communications without enough detail about why the work was performed.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the Motion for Reconsideration to the extent it requested correction of the January 16, 2025 Report and Recommendation to reflect recommended nontaxable expenses of $417.19 and otherwise denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The court issued an Amended Report and Recommendation reflecting that correction.